AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3970X vs Intel Core i9-10980XE: High End Flagships Fight

(Image credit: Shutterstock)
Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Zhiye Liu
News Editor, RAM Reviewer & SSD Technician

Zhiye Liu is a news editor, memory reviewer, and SSD tester at Tom’s Hardware. Although he loves everything that’s hardware, he has a soft spot for CPUs, GPUs, and RAM.

  • gfg
    I think it would be better to show the two processors alone and their overclock. In several games intel wins AMD clearly after overcloking and the conculusion does not accompany that.
    Reply
  • jortego128
    I think it would be better to show OC results on a separate page altogether, much like its done over @guru3d. Including baseline and overclocks for the same chip in the same test just convolutes the graphs and makes it more cluttered than it needs to be. Most people arent going to buy a workstation CPU and OC to get a few more fps in games.
    Reply
  • jdlech
    I'm starting to think there's a market for a chip that has decent multi thread performance, but has one specific processor with outstanding turbo boost... and a way to assign a demanding thread to that one processor.
    It's OK that all the processors only go up to 4GHz. But what some programs really need is that one processor to crank it all the way up to 6GHz, even when all the surrounding processors slow down to compensate for the heat generation.
    Because there's a lot of apps outside of FPS games that still rely on one single thread.
    (looking at you, Stellaris).
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    gfg said:
    I think it would be better to show the two processors alone and their overclock. In several games intel wins AMD clearly after overcloking and the conculusion does not accompany that.
    The majority of people of whom these processors are marketed towards aren't going to overclock them. They(overclockers) are the minority of PC owners.
    Same deal for their use in a gaming PC. Only a handful of content creators would go that route, of which they'd all be well served with a 3900X/3950X/9900K + 2080Ti.

    It's nice to see the OC potential of these chips, but it's not very important here.

    jortego128 said:
    I think it would be better to show OC results on a separate page altogether, much like its done over @guru3d. Including baseline and overclocks for the same chip in the same test just convolutes the graphs and makes it more cluttered than it needs to be. Most people arent going to buy a workstation CPU and OC to get a few more fps in games.
    I agree that they should've been separated. It made the results a little confusing to look at, honestly.
    Out of the box performance is key in this market.
    Reply
  • mdd1963
    Alienware undoubtedly has some Mega Gaming $7K rig planned with one of these CPUs in it, never mind that it will be outperformed by something costing $3-$4k less...
    Reply
  • joeblowsmynose
    gfg said:
    I think it would be better to show the two processors alone and their overclock. In several games intel wins AMD clearly after overcloking and the conculusion does not accompany that.

    Considering that no CPU with more than 16 cores was ever designed as a gaming product, and that ANY person that needs 18 or 32 cores, isn't needing a 5% advantage in FPS, and isn't bottle-necking their CPU to game, perhaps the gaming results are irrelevant here.

    Or perhaps there should be weighting of the values - for example, on HEDT CPUs, more weight to productivity scores at stock clocks, less weight to overclocking and less weight to gaming.

    Where on say a 9700k / 3700x - less weight on productivity applications and more on gaming and overclocking.

    That would be sensible.


    But at the end of the day these TH "comparisons" are all a little tongue-in-cheek from my perspective -- don't take them so seriously.
    Reply
  • ceomrman2
    When comparing products head to head, it seems logical to roughly match either performance or price. The AMD is double the price of the Intel, plus its supporting cast is almost double, too. An entry-level workstation based on the Threadripper would cost almost twice as much as one based on the Intel. It would be much more capable, too. It's like comparing entry level cars with a Hyundai Accent and BMW 2-series. You'd have to drop all the way to a TR 2950X to get the CPU+MB price within 10%. That's a very different discussion. At this time, the Intel seems pretty logically priced in the marketplace. It's performance is clearly inferior to the latest TR chips, but that's why it's half the price.
    Reply
  • dave.jeffers
    There really isn't a comparison between the Threadrippers and the Core i9-10980XE. This is why most reviewers chose to compare the i9 to the 3950X. Much closer performance, with the 3950X being much better value.
    Reply
  • Soaptrail
    This is the one time Intel owners don't need to upgrade motherboards!
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    dave.jeffers said:
    There really isn't a comparison between the Threadrippers and the Core i9-10980XE.
    Do you realize you're denying the fact that both Threadripper and the 10980XE are marketed as HEDT parts?
    Intel marketed the cpu as an HEDT part, therefore it gets evaluated as one. Threadripper is too, so there IS a comparison to be made between them.
    The gaming results are just the bland side salad.

    dave.jeffers said:
    This is why most reviewers chose to compare the i9 to the 3950X. Much closer performance, with the 3950X being much better value.
    3950X isn't a HEDT part. It's a mainstream one, albeit very expensive. It doesn't have the extra PCIE lanes or expandability of HEDT.

    It is, and should be rather embarrassing for Intel when a mainstream part outperforms their HEDT one in professional workloads...
    "You had one job... ONE JOB..."
    Reply